Frederick Douglass's "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?"

Frederick Douglass's speech was delivered on July 5th, 1852 in New York.  It was a meeting of the Rochester Ladies' Antislavery Society of Rochester.  At this meeting, he read the original Declaration before his speech, which was well received.  In 1852, there were million of slaves in the United States. Although the import of slaves was banned in 1808, internal trade was active for decades.  For additional context, in 1850 the Fugitive Slave Act was passed.  Fines and punishments for hiding slaves were made more harsh, and not only escaped slaves but also freed blacks were vulnerable to being thrown back into slavery.  Another interesting detail is that in July of 1848, Douglass was at the Seneca Falls convention.  After the speech was delivered, it was published in pamphlet form, with hundreds of pamphlets distributed.  

Now let's consider different genres of speech.  Aristotle is known for defining these three categories of speech:  epideictic (ceremonial), forensic (legal) and deliberative (political).  Epideictic speeches are commemorative of an event or entity in order to confirm group values.  They are about the present.  Forensic speeches includes issues of past crimes and wrongs.  Deliberative speeches are future-oriented and concern policy changes.  Given these categories, ask which (or which combination) best fits Douglass's speech.   

Douglass's speech seems to overturn what people might expect from a speech on the 4th of July. One might expect a celebration of the nation's "birthday" or a personal narrative of his struggle. Instead, he refuses to give Americans as much credit as they might want for the revolution.  He also refuses to identify himself as an American.  He also refuses to argue for abolition, claiming that biting admonishment is more appropriate.  

The structure of the speech is as follows.   He starts with the introduction.  Then he describes the present situation before going into detail about slave trade in America.  He also talks about the church in terms of religious liberty and the responsibility of the church for slavery.  Then he talks about his hope for the future.

An important point of contrast is that whereas other authors and rhetoricians of the time focused in principles and abstract ideals, Douglass himself focuses on discussing people and their actions.  When talking about the development of the country and its future, he uses the metaphor of flowing water, but criticizes the current state as if we are a ship out at sea during a storm.  He switches over from a epideictic speech and the speech becomes more deliberative.  He boldly claims that slaves are men (humans), believing that formal argument for such a thing is unnecessary.  He criticizes religion as an empty practice if slavery is allowed, but ends on a hopeful note.  

Rhetoric in 19th Century Women's Suffrage Movement

Social movements aim for inclusion in a political process rather than a radical change in the nature of the political process.  They argue that principles of liberty should also apply to excluded members.  Social movements challenge the notion that there is a unified public sphere with a unified interest.  Members of social movements will point out that there are people who exist outside of the majority or most influential public sphere.  Although members want inclusion in a larger social sphere, they also value safe spaces to exchange ideas, make goals and prepare arguments.

We consider now the "Declaration of Sentiments", which imitates the genre of the American Declaration of Independence.  Perhaps we read it as a parody, which need not simply imply a criticism of the original text.  A parody can also   Dr. Jarratt notes that this text implies a critique of the original text but also preserves the serious tone and thus serves to legitimate the original text.  

"Sentiment" had a particular definition at the time.  It referred to a prevailing opinion.  The word is also associated with passion, conviction and action.  In the 18th century, this word was associated with having good taste.  Dr. Jarratt proposes that 19th century writers wanted to create a particular experience in the reader in order to motivate a social change.  Indeed, this seems to be the reason for appealing to the sentiments.

In the early days of the United States, women were excluded from the public sphere of life, including from most universities and colleges.  Only a few women did venture into the public sphere, such as Fanny Wright, who spoke out against slavery and advocated for education for women and slaves.  Such women were often the subject of ridicule.  Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the main author of the Declaration of Sentiments, was another woman who ventured into the public sphere.

What is the ethos of the Women's Suffrage Movement?  The women noted that they plunged into a large task without being quite prepared for it.  Long had they been familiar with establishing social bonds, but they were new to forging new political bonds.  They felt completely unable to manage such a task and so they turned to "masculine" texts such as the Declaration of Independence.  

In general, this is part of a trend of using the language of the Enlightenment, including appeal to natural law and the law of God.  In Resolution 1, they claim that it is a law of nature that all people can pursue happiness.  Resolution 3 is the claim that women and men are equal.  The structure is also comparable. Like the original Declaration, it starts with an introduction, continues on to principles and then introduces a list of injuries before listing what methods they intend to take to have their will met.

In terms of contrasting revolution and reform, the 1776 document wanted to dissolve bonds of government, whereas the 1848 document wanted to change the position of women within the given political system.  Instead of complaining about the tyranny of a king, the women complained about the tyranny of men.  They both wanted specific changes in laws, particular expansion of equality under the law.  Specifically, women complained about the "civil death" that a woman experiences when getting married.  This means that once married, a woman's public identity became subsumed by her role as a wife.

Dr. Jarratt notes that the ethos, or emotional character, for both documents is one of righteous indignation.  Both documents list wrongs that bind a group together in opposition to another group.  There is also a use of "we" throughout the text, which binds the writer to the audience.

One criticism of the Declaration of Sentiments would be that race and class considerations are entirely excluded.  

Declarations in Dialogue: Voices of Oppressed

Today we consider two cases of people who had been excluded from the new social orders that emerged out of the Enlightenment.  Women were considered excluded from the Enlightenment because of their reproductive role and also because they were thought to lack qualities such as rationality, discipline, strength of character and intelligence.  Other obstacles to full participation in free society included the fact that women were not allowed to own property under historical British law that influenced early colonies.

Abigail Adams' letters to her husband and friend include not only plain statements about the limited opportunities for women, but also uses humor and mockery to try to persuade her husband.  In the March 31 letter, Abigail says that "all Men would be tyrants", there is no law without representation (even for women!) and that the women will rebel if they do not get representation.  She uses the language of rights ironically, which makes us question to what extent her comments about rebellion might be mere joking.  In John's response on April 14, he mocks Abigail, saying that he "cannot but laugh" at her request and those of other "tribes".  He says that men will not abandon their "Masculine systems" in the name of the "Despotism of the petticoat".  Overall, he is dismissive of her claims and eventually in the May 26 letter he writes to his friend, he says that women cannot be allowed to be part of the system because then all other excluded groups (children, men without property, etc.) will need to be included.  There are three main reasons why he thinks women should not be included: first, women are delicate because of their sex and gender; second, women are bound by domestic obligations and third, including women means including all other excluded tribes.

Dr. Jarratt claims that Abigail Adams tried to use her letters to create a public sphere for political debate.  The letters do not have have a rational rhetoric such as those of empowered men at the time, and Dr. Jarratt notes that excluded groups often use alternative styles of persuasion when they are disempowered by traditional systems.

Our second case study is the Constitution of Haiti from 1801.  Remember that slavery had been outlawed in French colonies in 1794, and at this time all men were granted citizenship.  Of course, this was only after petitions for freedom had been denied and after a violent insurrection.  Dr. Jarratt reminds us that many famous Enlightenment thinkers thought that there were essential differences between Europeans and people with African ancestry.  This led to the attempt of white French citizens to reinstitute slavery in Haiti.

The Haitian constitution declares that humans are not supposed to be legally divided by color (Article 5) and also ensures that no person can be owned by another human being (Title V).  However, Toussaint L'Overture tries to make himself governor indefinitely, establishes Catholicism as the official religion and tries to make physical labor mandatory.  In 1801, Napoleon attempted to reintroduce slavery.  In 1803, L'Overture was imprisoned.  A year later, Dessalines led the Haitians to victory against the French.  In 1804 we get the Haitian Declaration if Independence from Dessalines.  This document is addressed to all people, including women and children.  Dr. Jarratt notes that this document marks the beginning of a new stage of maturity for the government.  Dessalines wanted this declaration to mark a time of growth.  Note also the contrast between this document and the American Declaration.  In Dessalines document, the French are named as tigers and vultures, unlike the Americans who wanted to express solidarity with British soldiers (focusing on King George as the villain).  Then a second constitution came about in 1805.  Haiti is declared as a "black" nation and whites are banned from owning property.

Rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence

Now we transition away from bourgeois tragic drama and towards declarations.  Dr. Jarratt introduces declarations as texts that serve to enact political bonds.  We read documents like this differently than we read stories.  Stories we read as literature whereas declarations must be examined rhetorically.  Rhetoric is the study of how we use language to persuade.  This can include logic, but also emotional appeal.  Dr. Jarratt wants us to think of rhetoric as the study of how we do things with words.

Before we discuss the details of the Declaration of Independence, we should think about the history before this time.  The 18th century was a time of great political change.  John Locke is credited for being the grandfather of social contract theory, which is the view that governments are formed when groups of rational individuals decide to join together for mutual benefit.  This was a move away from monarchy, where kings claimed to have political power granted to them by divine right.  The 18th century saw the rise of a public sphere, where people from different classes could join together and discuss public issues.  It was also a time of great economic disparity between the aristocratic class and the lower working class.  

Now let's consider the organization of the Declaration.  First, we begin with a general description of the current political situation and the way in which this group of individuals was unified in the fight against being subordinated by the King of England.  Second, the author introduces the basic principles, or warrants, that ground the rest of the argument: these self-evident truths such as all men being created equal to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Third, the author provides factual support for grievances against the King of England  Fourth, the reader is introduced to the background of the conflict (petitions, warnings, appeals and finally separation).  This reminds us that there were attempts to solve this conflict in other ways.  Fifth, the author concludes with a firm declaration of independence.    

How are we to understand these unalienable rights, or self evidence truths, such as all have the right to a pursuit of happiness?  What kind of notion of happiness did the authors intend to use?  In the 18th century, happiness was something that is based on virtue and excellence of character.  One could only be happy if one had cultivated an intellectual nature moral judgment.  Happiness only comes about after working hard on yourself to be an altruistic and public-oriented individual.  

One important detail about the language used in the text is that when we look at different drafts of the text, Jefferson first refers to his peers as fellow subjects, but then later introduces the word "citizen".  

Note, however, that many people are not considered under this declaration: Native Americans, African slaves or any women.  Indeed, an earlier draft by Jefferson included admonishments against George III for the slave trade.  These criticisms against the slave trade were later taken out.  

Storytelling in "The Betrothal"

When we look closely at the way the story is told, we see that the narrator is biased against the black population on Haiti.  The narrator describes the "innumerable favours and kindnesses" of Guillaume de Villeneuve.  Congo Hoango, however, is described as being frenzied.  There is no explanation that this is a slave revolt.  The narrator notes that the violence is caused by the freeing of the slaves, which he calls reckless.  Hoango is represented as cruel, treacherous and violent.  De Villeneuve is represented as generous loyal honest.  It is unclear based on this evidence alone whether the narrator is to be taken seriously or ironically.

Dr. Pan is convinced that the narrator is to be taken seriously and that he represents a view similar to Gustav.  Gustav seems to be racist against black people, even if he is unwilling to admit it.  Rather than making explicitly racist claims, he gives a series of instances that are meant to support his opinion.  Gustav thinks in gross generalities based on stories about individuals of each race.  He clearly thinks that even if there has been tyranny against black people in Haiti, the whites are still in the moral right.  Dr. Pan thinks this echoes an opinion that was popular among French people at the time.  Specifically, this is similar to the idea that slavery is preferable to freeing the slaves because there is somehow something essentially dangerous about black people being free.  

So Gustav himself is a narrator of stories within Kleist's fictional realm.  Remember Gustav's story about "faithful Marianne", a woman who sacrificed herself for him.  This story seems to be an attempt to convince Toni to be loyal to him (just like Marianne had been).  Gustav seems to put forward the value of loyalty as being key for a moral person.  After telling this story, he later promises to marry Toni.  Toni then defends Gustav against Babekan.  She is impressed with his honor and nobility and she takes on his perspective on the conflict.  This set of values is also familiar within the genre of bourgeois tragic drama.  Bourgeois qualities include honestly, loyalty and pity.    Blacks, however, seem to have "aristocratic" values, such as treachery, deceit and cruelty.  Another similarity between Kleist's story and bourgeois tragic drama is that the bond to which the female ultimately is loyal is the bond of love to a man of another class.

Another story told is Babekan's story about Toni's father, who abandoned Babekan and his baby.  Also, Babekan notes that Villeneuve is rather cruel at times, having been responsible for ordering sixty lashes for Babekan.  This perspective is in tension with the narrator.  Another reason why there is tension between Babekan's perspective and Gustav's is that Babekan notes that Komor, who is not related to Toni, was willing to adopt her.  It seems that whites favor biological bonds more than the blacks, who value the maintenance of a household regardless of biological heritage.  We also find out that Hoango is very loyal to his sons and that his soldiers are loyal to Hoango such that they will fight to the death in his name.  Here we see that the "bad" "aristocratic" values can also be found in white people and that the positive values can be found in black people.  So from this perspective, we can criticize both the narrator and Gustav.

We should also note that at the end of the story, Toni claims that she is not a traitor because she is white and so she is on their side of the conflict.

In this story, we have three different ways to interpret the conflict.  First, we have Gustav's attempt to make claims based on the individual traits of some members of a community.  On this interpretation, the conflict is between humans and "inhuman" or immoral people.  Second, Babekan seems to think that the community is the marker of whether someone is on the right side of a conflict.  On this interpretation, one should be loyal to community rather than to blood or to individual people and this is the perspective through which we should judge parties in a conflict. Third, Toni seems to represent a commitment to a political alliance based on racial divisions.  On this interpretation, conflict is between communities with relatively homogenous racial composition.

Within this story, then, the "objectivity" of events lies in the specific interpretation of the individual.  Society is thus a product of interpretation.  "Objective" facts about a community or about a society depend on the interpretations of specific individuals.

Art vs. Life, Goethe vs. Kleist

Dr. Pan started lecture by noting a tension (what he calls a contradiction) between the way in which Goethe's version of the Faust story is a reinterpretation of an old tale and the fact that the point of Goethe's version is to focus not on stories, books and words but to focus on the real world.  Although Goethe wants to emphasize the importance of worldly experience, he is doing so by means of words, concepts and abstractions.  His method (literature) seems to be in conflict with the moral of his story (to experience the world).  We also see here how literature is then construed as an imitation of the world.  Experience is prior to interpretation.  Dr. Pan contrasted this with Kleist.  Kleist thinks that events and experiences are just how they are interpreted.  On this view, experience is not prior to interpretation.  Each interpretation, each act of putting meaning on the world or understanding the world, is a creative act that has consequences for the real world. Literature, then, can be prior to the world.

In the 19th century, Goethe was criticized for his seemingly anti-religious, individualist, humanist ethic.  Joseph von Eichendorff criticized him for undermining religion and other idealistic enterprises, since Faust does not want to just follow ideals but to develop through striving and struggling. When Germany became unified in late 19th century (1871), Goethe's Faust becomes the tale of a hero who represents an ideal German national identity.  In fact, praise for Faust's character peaks during the Nazi period in Germany.  Hermann August Korff, in accordance with Destro, notes that Faust thinks that personal development is more important than conventional morality.  Dr. Pan wants to note a similarity between the "Faustian man", who fulfills his earthly projects at all costs and the expansionist thinking that characterizes the Nazi period in Germany.

There is an alternative reading of Goethe's Faust.  W.E.B. Du Bois, for example, puts a more positive spin on the notion of striving.  Du Bois calls upon oppressed individuals to strive against their oppressors and to "attain a place in the world".  Another link between Du Bois and Goethe is the notion of two souls.  In 1111-17, Faust talks about his two souls: one desiring worldly striving, the other wanting sublime ideals.  Du Bois thinks that having two souls, or having a split nature, is at the core of the problem for African-Americans living under Jim Crow laws.  Du Bois calls this a "double consciousness", meaning that one is always looking at herself through her own eyes and through the eyes of the dominant society.  This is now a conflict between two cultures instead of just a conflict between an individual and society.

Dr. Pan thinks that the Kleist story is a story is related because we must consider whether "The Betrothal in San Domingo" is mainly a conflict between an individual and society or between two communities.  Dr. Pan notes that at the outset, the narrator seems to be presenting objective facts, but the narrator actually presents a very biased opinion by leaving out important details, such as the practice of slavery in San Domingo (where it had been practiced since the 16th century) or the fact that there was a revolution going on in Haiti.  In 1789, Haiti made up 2/3 of the economic production of France.  Or more specifically, the work of half a million slaves accounted for 2/3 of French trade.  1789 was also the year of the French Revolution, which was based on principles such as the equality of all men and their natural born freedom.  The Articles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man include claims about how all humans have rights such as liberty.  Clearly these ideals conflict with the practice of slavery.  So in 1791, a slave revolt begins.  At this point, Britain actually attempts to take over the colony and take advantage of slavery.  In response, the French abolish slavery in order to protect San Domingo from British and Spanish intruders.  After abolitionist Toussaint L'Ouuverture helps the French to succeed, he is imprisoned and then dies a year later, in 1803.  In 1804, the black general Dessalines (known for defeating French troops in 1803) declares independence for Haiti.

The French Revolution is relevant for Germany, as there were some battles between German troops defending a monarchy and French revolutionists.  The western border of Germany was home to many battles between those who wanted to liberate German citizens and those who wanted to support the German monarchy.  Finally in 1806, Napoleon defeats Prussians at Jena, starting a French occupation of the German-speaking world.  Kleist was actually a soldier in the siege of Mainz, fighting against French troops.  Kleist is then later imprisoned in the same place as L'Ouuverture, where he could have heard about the struggle of Haitians against the French.  We can see that the French played a role in much of the conflict in Kleist's own life as well as being a main focus of his story.

P.O.S. and Individualism: A Contrast Case

Here are a number of songs from Minneapolis rapper P.O.S.  These songs express commitment to values which are similar to Faust's values such as individualism, passion and striving.  He also expresses commitment to some values that are not consonant with Faust's values.  I'm posting this here because I think he provides a nice contrast case to Faust.  Also, it's really freakin' good.

Which values are shared by Faust and P.O.S.?  Which are not shared? What are apparent social differences between P.O.S. and Faust?  Do they share values in spite of these differences, not share values because of these differences or, perhaps, some combination of these two alternatives? How might social differences or differences in values matter when we consider whether either figure could be considered a hero?


"Goodbye"     "De la Souls"  "Purexed"     "Gimme Gimme Gunshots" (explicit content)